The most common, traditional interfaces for electronic data entry include keyboards and mice. These tools often require users to stay in a physical position that can be difficult to sustain for long periods of time. FIG. 1 is an example of a traditional computer keyboard used in accordance with the prior art. The computing system 100, with user input and output interfaces is shown. A traditional computer keyboard 104, the input interface, is located in close proximity to the display device 102, the output interface. The user would need to be in a seated position to utilize the computing system set up shown in FIG. 1.
A growing body of scientific studies cites that typing on traditional computer keyboards, in a seated position, for many hours can have harmful repercussions to user health. Current mobile device data entry systems, which can be used in a non-seated position, still necessitate movements of the hands and neck, which increase bodily strain and reduce vigilance of the external environment. Some replacements for traditional keyboards include ergonomic keyboards, which include shapes that are better adapted to the human body. Still other solutions attempt to replace the keyboard, such as with special purpose gloves allow the wearer to make combinations of gestures for gaming and can even be used for typing. However, such solutions have several limitations that prevent them from being widely adopted.
First, a standard keyboard has 70+ characters that require 70+ keystrokes to reproduce them. The training required to learn the 70+ keystrokes often takes several semesters of class work or many years of experience. However, the process of using the standard keyboard is eased by labels for each character. If an untrained user wants to type a particular character, the user just looks for the labeled key on the keyboard, and knows that a single stroke will invoke that character on the display screen. Many of the alternatives to standard keyboard do not offer a similar option for untrained users to identify characters for input.
Additionally with prior keyboard replacements, even if the user knows that actions need to be done to select a character, these moves may be too hard to perform sustainably, possibly causing a higher physical strain than the one imposed by the traditional keyboard. Thus, these keyboard alternatives are not appropriate for all users, particularly those with disabling injuries.
Further, the habit of using a keyboard is widely engrained in most digital users. Thus, teaching a new input method, particularly those with no labels for identifying characters, is challenging and met with resistance from a user.
Although some limitations are described above, there are many limitations regarding the use of conventional keyboards that can be addressed by substitute input devices.